what they're trying to do. one family, the koch brothers the second wealthiest family in america , very, very nervous and unhappy trying to catch up to the waltons. they're working really hard if they can elect candidates but that is to end a social security and medicare and medicaid. that is a family spending $900 million but to spend more money in the campaign.

you are not looking at a democratic society the oligarchy form of society and we will stop that. [applause] . . hour.

>> hi, good morning. my name is bruce, i i will be the moderator for our discussion today on form policy and the 2016 primaries. i want i want to welcome all of you who have braved the threat of the storm today to make it out here. also, i am looking for tour conversation about our primaries

and what they all mean to us because in a few weeks we'll be in the midst of it all. one one of the real questions i think is whether it will be a rare instance where this is a form policy election or an election that is driven in a large part by foreign policy rather than domestic issues. we have a number of experts with us today. opens, charlie cook editor and publisher of the cook report, a colleague of mine, sam feist was senior vp of cnn who can entertain us with stories about organizing debates. , jim lindsay who is chair of the council. his long time partner.

we'll have an initial period where i lead a conversation but we will have ample time for you to ask your questions and make comments. i will get you out of here at 930 a.m., as promised. i would remind you this is on the record, we'll simulcast of my casting this. this is not a typical cf our event where it is on what we call house rules. let me start off by asking charlie cook, the research survey in december found that national security rather than the domestic economy was the leading concern of the public, this was in the wake of paris

and san bernadino. specifically terrorism was the issue that people were most concerned about it. gallup came out with the survey in january that said concern about terrorism was down a bit. the economy was the number one issue. my leadoff question to you is, do we anticipate, or do do you anticipate that this will be an american election where form policy plays a disproportionate role or will it be domestic issues that drive the election. >> of course the answer is no, i do not think this is going to be a form policy driven election unless something, an event in the 60 days or so leave it up to the election. they have asked us to announce that anybody who is here this morning gets a 25% discount on their cfr dues for next year because you showed up. americans rarely vote on form

policy issues. it has to be a dramatic and immediate event happening leading into the election. i have no doubt, san bernadino certainly did spike it up. i think the mindset, john edwards used to say that we have two countries, the have and have-nots, to me there is a democratic country an independent country country and it republican country. republican attitudes are form policy is an xo stencil threat or country, things are on the edge, were about to go in the abyss. democrats are more like this is an elevated concern. independence, in the middle but a little bit closer to democrats but it depends on who you're talking to, how big of a role it is going to play. although during the primaries, we just did a poll in new hampshire this week and hillary does best on foreign-policy, yet

form policy among democrats is way down. just the opposite on the republican side. foreign-policy is the number one issue for republicans at least in new hampshire and elsewhere as well. donald trump. donald trump does very well in that. in the primaries it certainly, to your point republicans are making form policy an important issue and it is playing out that way which i think is giving donald trump more things to talk about than some of the established republicans have less to say. i think that's giving him an advantage. >> let's pursue this for a minute and it's ironic and we should stay with us for a minute. >> the survey show that there is a real partisan split on foreign-policy issues. republicans are more concerned about china than democrats. republicans are more concerned about terrorism and the war on terror, don't don't think it's working than democrats.

republicans are more supportive of sending troops to the middle east than democrats. a chinese friend of mine spoke recently, his assessment of the republican candidate was they believed in omnidirectional -- the question is omni directional only works if it resonates with the electorate. why do you think that republicans seem to be more afraid and then in response to this more willing to use force than democrats? i think it could be a couple of things happening at the same time. as you head out of 2015 and into 2016, there is a blip in the stock market. the economy was doing better, if you're republican looking for issues that you can use against democrats perhaps form policy may be more effective

particularly if over the course of the next 11 or 12 months the economy does recover. unemployment was hitting recent lows as we ended 2015. that is part of it in terms of tactics of the candidate. it also resonates with republicans and trump's message from the beginning is clearly playing on concern fears among base republican voters that have been exacerbated by paris and san bernadino. he is taking advantage of that concern and fear and it is working. >> it is also pointing out that republicans traditionally worry about form policy, defense, national security issues than democrats. so there's a very strong partisan difference between democrats and republicans and independents are in the middle on which issues are important, and how poor they are.

in many ways i agree with charlie's points about this not be no form policy election or likelihood. there are variances of politics in play here. >> the unpredictability is something that who knows what is going to happen in the world in august, september, october, october 2016. as we ended 2015 we are planning a debate that we had in las vegas in the middle of december. as we had started to plan that debate, it was going to be a debate that covered a range of topics, domestic, social issues, foreign policy, terrorism, that debate came about a week and a half after san bernadino, and after the second paris attack. it became 100% a commander-in-chief debate. that is the only subject we did

because that is what the news events dictated. >> it is important to keep in mind that something matters to the voters does not mean it matters to the boat. so you have to look at to the extent that you are talking about topics. i would argue a case of the republican primaries since the republicans are hitting the same base being, obama is week we must be strong, i don't see differentiating among the republican candidates. the other question is will it change turn out. we'll different people come to the ballot box because the form policy. i do not see that is true. the final thing to keep in mind is most people already know who they're going to vote for. they may not know it but they do, all of our social science research indicates that people who tend to vote democrat, and those who vote republican stay voting with the party of their choice. if you go back to the 60s perhaps 15% of voters in a presidential election from cycle

to cycle may switch. now it is is maybe 5% or 7%. so they are open to be moved is a lot smaller. >> i think that's a very good point. if you look at the overall numbers, we have never had more people who self identified as independence. at least in our work and i think cnn is the same thing that if you look at leaners to the republican party and leaders to the democratic party we are not that divided, the middle is not nearly as big. >> the tea parties can that are themselves independents because they don't want to be established with a party but we know they are republicans. >> their people with some deep-seated needs to call themselves independence. so an independent lead is virtually democratic as a real democrat.

but a point jen made a few moments ago, i'm i'm sure chris matthews would not want to say this now but they used to say with predictable overstatement, we have two parties in this country, we have a mommy party and a daddy party. the party. the mommy party is a caring, nurturing party that is concerned about education, daycare, touchy-feely stuff. the daddy party is tough on defense, tough on crime. now obviously it is a gross exaggeration but the thing is there some underlying proof there that there are things in each party that are very real. so it is perfectly natural for republicans to want to rattle cages a little bit on the republican side or on the defense i. i think the other thing though is there is now a view among conservatives a most republicans

that anything that president obama touches or thought about touching is evil, wrong, destructive, dangerous. even if he had not thought about it yet, even if you did they'll be evil too. again. again, it is a populist stick existential threat. i think sometime and i don't wanna -- i think he's been a mediocre president. the thing is i think sometimes in politics if you hate someone so much it really colors your judgment on a lot of things. i think they are totally blinded by their hatred for him, therefore they are not necessarily making a lot of really objective judgments. >> for hillary clinton is not wholly different than barack obama. >> it's close. but do you think because obama

is president and this has been obama's form policy for the last seven years, that to the extent that form policy is an issue in this election, it is really a referendum on obama's handling of form policy. you just backed charlie's point of it's a referendum on obama. we note know in our service for years now people have said they're not tough enough, actually democrats think he is doing a fine job. this question of the need to have a tough president, the perception of a president being being tough, does it appeal to the authoritarian strain among some voters. there is some debate here about what trump's appeal is, it's more authoritarian is inches what is it say about the voters? >> let me ask a question of these guys.

is a question approve, disapprove of obama's obama's job on form policy, it's almost a real question of, how do you think things are going on in the world? if things are not going -- if they feel uneasy about what is going on in the world and its thumbs down. notwithstanding the feelings that republicans have toward him. >> the question of a strong leader matters. it has mattered in many elections, americans tend to like the person they see is the stronger of the two general election candidates. not always, but almost always. i think that is one of the years that this matters. sometimes strong leader is can this person got the u.s. economy and get us out of a ditch if that is what is necessary. the notion of picking the candidate of the two who is the stronger leader is not new and plays out. >> let's back up for one minute. i want to ask jim we are debating whether or policy will be an issue in this election,

when was the last time form policy played a major role in a presidential election, as we think back of the outcome of past elections? >> i think the notion of form policy election it is much comment but it's very seldom cited. we used to go back to the candidates, 1968, humphrey versus nixon but when you look at the policy they were not that far apart. so wasn't necessarily that it separated them, there's plenty other issues going on in the time. george wallace popularity was not tied to the vietnam war. ronald reagan in 1980 but i would remind everyone of something how the misery index. the economy was not doing well, the interest rates were in

double digits. that was an election that clearly turned on form policy. i. i do think you can see in primaries with form policy can matter. go back to 2008 with barack obama and secretary clinton. senator clinton and at the time certainly at the beginning her position on iraq she voted for and was unwilling at that point to apologize or brief view. i think it did give barack obama an opening. was that a form policy issue issue or a question of what democrats viewed as a major mistake that she did not want to walk away from? >> bernie sanders is taken advantage of that same issue. it's one of the few areas where hillary clinton is out of step with her party. she has acknowledged that it was a mistake, but he has used that issue. >> eight maybe 14 years ago that boat took place. it is still thrown up as a bad

judgment. >> is very interesting on the issue that would affect potentially distinguish between clinton and sanders would have been the ppp. very early on in the campaign secretary clinton took it off the table by saying, while i have been in favor of tpp, this one could even meet my standards. >> the iraq war vote could also been a bigger issue for democrats to form policy was a bigger concern among democrats. because it is so low is not the heart of the conversation. >> i think. >> anything but income wealth then free college tuition pretty

sanders doesn't want to talk about it. i think that it's one thing that will keep this from being too elevated on the democratic side. he is pretty much on uncomfortable getting up that. >> on form policy they are not violent disagreement. they agree in large part. they are comfortable with essentially president obama's form policy. there is a lot of reason not to come on say that. i do think the committee, back to your point is that we get to a general election, republicans will clearly try to turn this into a form policy election, make it a form policy election, make it a referendum on president obama's handling of form policy and whoever the democratic candidates will have to deal with the issue and presumably turn it away from a referendum on president obama. and we have seen this play out before the republican candidates ideas are risky are not well thought out. >> alaska question where you do see economic policy and for policy overlap, that's dealing with china. our survey show that when you

ask people about their concerns about china it is the economy, maybe cyber security, it is not military threats by china per se. but people see in that survey that we did that among form policy concerns people see protecting american jobs as a form policy concern. even though it's not they can played it to even especially when it has to do with china. the question is, we've seen a little bit of china bashing in the republican primary, trump, despite the fact that he denies it it is on tape that he called for 45% tariff on imports from china which outdoes dick gephardt in the 80s. for those of you that remember that. >> right, exactly. but it is reminiscent of a

little bit of china bashing that took place between clinton and obama in the primaries. then it disappeared when obama became president. it's also reminiscent of the china bashing in the 80s and democratic primaries especially. do we think has any traction in the election or if it is just noise and will go away. >> i would say there's no traction. we're talking here about is 2016 going to be a form policy election, i actually don't think the conversation right now is about form policy, it's about terrorism. indeed all of the other issue whether were talking about china, russia, climate change or -- candidates are not engaging in them. if you look at the public opinion polls what is the most important issue facing the country they're saying terrorism and not china. not the future of europe, not russian aggression. we have to be careful not to overgeneralize that the public

is seized with facts when they are not. if you look at this campaign which is not much different than most campaigns, there very long on criticism. the outside party criticism does a criticize what the income and its job has done. candidates tend not to get into that but it's a benefit because oftentimes they can make promises that come back to haunt them when they succeed and be president. in large part because of these issues do not have really great policy solutions. a classic cases isis, where where there is water pounding the table about who is going to be stronger in dealing with isis but in terms of particular suggestions about what they would do differently, it doesn't look much different than current policy. in my not be in the same zip code as the current policy but

it's in the same area code. >> at least the tonality of the republican criticism is very harsh. especially like ted cruz others. the question is, is there any hint based on experience and past election that people are painting themselves into corners, or is there no corner you can really paint yourself into as a candidate. you can get out of it by just ignoring it once your president. >> i think they're painting themselves in a corner lots of things this year. as i mentioned earlier democratic america, and a pen in america, republican america, for independence on any given issue, do they seem to look more like the way democrats think or that republicans think. more often than any time i can remember, they're not over as far as democrats are but they are generally closer to where

democrats are then where republicans are. that is politically painting yourself into a corner. >> except that if you believe that donald trump success so far is because the people supporting him or scared, they are scared about terrorist attacks in the united states, they're worried they're worried about their jobs, but people taking their jobs, about having their job five or ten years from now, about whether their kids will have a good his life as they have had. his supporters fall into the category of concern about all of those things. he is speaking directly to them and i don't know that he's painting himself into a corner with this group of people, some of whom are in the democratic category. >> i would say more republicans/conservatives. trump to me is more populist. he's closer to the right than

the left, generally but it is more populist than anything else. more anger, there's not a lot of ideological cohesion with what donald trump actually believes. >> i think if you're presidential candidate painting yourself into a corner's a good problem to have because that means you have won the election and you can deal the problem down the road. i think 11 of the things that happen when you have conversation that is a lot of table pounding, it's about attitude, if i'm in office these things are going to happen, is that you do not pay yourself in a corner because you have to leave yourself to a certain number of acts. the classification would be clinton's position in nafta back in 1992 and then having to find a way to walk back from that. that is an example where you can repeat yourself in the corner it to create a whole new room for yourself.

>> let me ask a question, were, were venturing into a broader discussion about the election. >> does this mean we can get off the subject now. >> let's talk a little bit, i don't know about your conversation with leaders in the republican party but my conversations is a probable concern they have. most people with trump on this point but we also see it with their concern about crews. is this just noise at this point in their coalesce around whoever the nominee is because that is what you do after the primaries, or is this a potentially fundamental problem for the republicans if either of those two men become the nominee? >> yesterday was a fascinating day, you saw bob at dole and trent lott come out with a negative endorsement of ted cruise. on the same day the national review last night came out with

an issue, a symposium they called it with 30 leading conservatives ranging from within negative endorsement about donald trump so now the real core of establishment republicans and even base conservative leaders are split and said no to trump and no to ted cruz. but each one has different pace. this idea that the establishment is embracing donald trump or reconciling themselves, i would think that that the biggest bunch of garbage. the thing about it is, they see this guy is a stone laser and a general election if you were to get the nomination. that will be a bad thing. but they personally despise ted

cruz. for bob dole, god bless him, cruz led the fight effectively to torpedo the disabilities treat. bob dole felt humiliated by what they did, he went on the senate floor and holds ted cruz personally responsible. this is just personal, now they hate both of them, or they hate cruz and i have no use for donald trump. but they are not embracing anybody, it is just two ticks you off more, trump or or cruz. david people come to different conclusions. the establishment is not going to be embracing donald trump. >> the problem for the establishment, some point they have not rallied around any other candidates, they remain split, it creates a really complicated. >> i think their fear is that

they could not only lose at the white house when they think they had a chance to win it, but they could lose control of at least one house of congress in the process. now charlie you run a piece this week that if you look at all the top people, the republicans can't lose the house unless something momentous happens. donald trump could not even lose republicans their majority in the house, yet where these lines are, that cannot happen speemac, the senate? >> republicans could lose the majority of the senate just having a bad night. they could have just an okay nominee and loose. when you have six republican seats up and out no democratic states up, this is just bad arithmetic. the way i see this playing out is -- donald trump has basically

35% of the vote. now 35% and a 12 way field, that's a big number. but when 12 goes to eight, goes to six, goes to four, goes to three, goes to two, i don't think to two, i don't think that 35 number expands a whole lot. i can see it coming down to a point where trouble have a third but probably leading a little bit, the cruz has a third may be, and, and establishment guy has a quarter, then there is a fifth that is just up in the air. what they do before at the convention, i don't know. >> that leads to my next question. when do you think we'll have some better sense of who the republican and democratic nominees are? if you put on your hats here, is that march 1, march 15, do we

have to go into april and may? do you go to the convention? >> the democrat side is easier, if bernie sanders has a good day in iowa and a good day new hampshire, south carolina should new be an interesting test. if he has a good day in iowa new hampshire and a bad day in south carolina, that will tell you that the democratic nomination could be wrapped up quickly for hillary. if he has a good day and south carolina than it goes on for a little bit. republican side is more complicated. proportional voting through march eighth, march 15 we begin some of the states, not all of them are winner take all. that process keeps going for a long time, i think it could easily be may or june. >> let me take the democratic

side. what are caucuses about? ideology, passion, energy. so let's give bernie sanders, just for fun give him the iowa caucus, let's give give him all 15 states that have caucuses. let's give him 100% of all the caucus state delegates, then let's give him new hampshire and all of new england, 100% of all the delegates from new england. you know what that gives them? 36% of the delegates you need to win at the convention. after caucuses, new england, and, and college towns, bernie sanders has nothing going on. there's just not enough soy

latte drinking, birkenstock wearing, subaru driving people in the democratic party to nominate bernie sanders. if god is hoping today that hillary clinton is not going to be the democratic nominee for president, my sumption would be that the the section moved, she is prosecuted and democrats will hit the red box, and joe biden's phone numbers inside. this nomination is not going to bernie sanders. >> you just said the same thing i said. >> but i said it better than you said it. >> i said look at south carolina. >> it is now time to have us a better by members here. i would like to turn this over, if you could speak up and identify yourself, make it a question, keep it short and we will try to get it around all of you. >> there's a sign of pennsylvania about trump coming in 2016, maybe 16, maybe that's a horrible way to come, your

comment on painting corners. i wonder how party wins an election when they're against the trend on most major social issues. putting that to the site, my question, what is on immigration what you had not mentioned really. isn't this a periodic tenancy combined with his security element we have not seen be hard. it isn't really a plan. people who care about this care about immigration, sort of form policy but they care about it because their predator jobs and all of that. and trump. and trump fuels to all of that. second is, who are the form policy advisers to donald trump, can you name them? i've asked people that don't know. the last question is, turnout. i saw a poll that had an incredible flip and it showed that if the people who, if you

look at people who are likely caucus goers, sanders is way up. if you you look at people who came to the caucus last time, clinton is up. i really wonder if the turnout numbers on sanders, and these people have not sit through a five hour caucus i have. >> so the new poll that cnn release yesterday, among ugly caucus goers, we trump 37, cruz 36, rubio -- if you actually look at who voted in the 2012 voters, trump 37, cruz 26. if lips cruz nerdy, trump 28. the eight. the answer to who is going to win iowa caucuses, it's turnout but it is really are there new

caucus scores coming out. people have have not caucus before. is there something in the trump technique. same thing same thing on the democratic side in iowa right now among likely caucus course, sanders 51 in clinton 43. if you look at 2008 caucus goers it is flipped. clinton 55, sanders 38. so you are right, we have absolutely no idea who is going to in the iowa caucuses right now because we do not know who's going to turn out. if the weathers bad that will change things. >> having lived in iowa and participate in the caucuses, the ambient air temperature matters a lot. you have to decide whether you want to get it off your self angle on the minus 15-degree weather, go to the local bus depot, the colder it is the more likely you're going to sit home and watch tv.

>> especially older voters. >> even younger voters. >> the most obvious problematic thing looking at who voted in 2008, classified, there's doubly a better indicator of the republican side than the democrat. because sanders wrote is so agent driven, if you're going to automatically exclude everybody that is under 26 years of age, which you would do if you are only people who caucus in 2008, then obviously that changes things. >> what about immigration is an issue. how do you you see a play now? >> just to your question about how can americans support someone who is disagrees with them. among republicans here are the numbers on the top issues. terrorism is likely into the form policy question, among

likely voters form policy 34% and jobs 24 percent, immigration 11 percent. healthcare four percent. healthcare 4%, budget 3%, socialist use, 1%. taxes and education after that. it is just not part of the conversation or campaign. it may be part of election, maybe but it doesn't seem to be registering right now. >> since you dismiss national security is an issue within the general or foreign policy is general, how important is the issue of form policy with national security going to differentiate on the nomination of the republican candidate? >> i think it matters much more on the republican side.

clearly trump has tapped into something that is important that has distinguished him from his candidates. i think it's less about the issues and more about the person. go back to the strong leader measurement that form policy is one of those issues that allows you to establish either your position or rhetoric as a particularly strong leader, ronald reagan did this in 1980 what it it was a necessary form policy election. ronald reagan used his form policy position and talked about his strength of america and that built him up as a leader in a way that transcends form policy. he is those issues. hillary clinton, even though foreign-policy is not a tough issue among democrats, she certainly using that as an electability factor against bernie sanders, asking the question whether he should be the commander-in-chief. and using the strong leader

metric against. leslie because democrats are going to vote on form policy issues but because americans still prefer the stronger leader will have a chance to choose. >> i think it goes to the larger trump phenomenon. to me half of the republican party right now, anger is not the word, they're livid. they're filled with rage. their venting and a lot of them are using trump as a vehicle for this anger. the question is, is this going to continue on to the convention, or at some point with some sizable part of these trump folks start to think, okay okay i'm angry, i'm still angry, but seek a more plausible vehicle for their anger. when i watch tapes of focus groups of trump supporters, you

get -- they want you to know how angry they are and they're not finished with the message. after about 30 minutes of them talking, you start start seeing some hairline fractures the period. you will hear this i love what trump says but i wonder about his temperament. more but i worry about his judgment, or or but i worry about his personality. i think february is going probably going to be the last month that people will be sending that message. when the real stuff starts on march 1, i think you're going to see a substantial part of the say, you know what, i'm having a hard time visualizing donald trump in a situation room with the director of national intelligence with his finger on the button.

i'm not saying all of the trump people are going to bail out on him, but i i think enough that they are going to steer towards an alternative vehicle for their rage. i suspect that that is going to be take cruz. i think you can see cruz, he will, after out on tran iowa he will consolidate huckabee, grandpa will be no more. he looking lately consolidate the conservative but the popular theory that trump has, i think you're going to start seeing a decent number of those people bleeding over when they finished delivering their message and start selecting a president. >> form policy is an much among the republican candidates. for ram paul, he's out of tune with republicans are, lindsey graham has the most specific and was willing to send troops to

syria and his now on the sideline. i think most of the candidates in the republican are still there and they are angry, they're going to do something it's attitude it's not specific policy. why hasn't form policy concerned about terrorism different trade among the republican candidates? just for the reasons that charlie just laid out, with interesting looking at the polls is that when you add republican voters what characteristics are you looking for in a candidate? experience ranks at the bottom. they're not interested in people who have experience. that's. that's why you look at the governors who are in the race, governors have very strong chances to become the nominee. they've gone by the wayside.

no governor walker, governor governor jindal, the governor's we do have in the racer at that act of the pack. >> governor perry was the first one out. >> in the republican party, experience and expertise is now a disqualifying characteristic with half of the republican party. go figure. >> it's so overrated. >> but you asked about the establishment before the question is not with the establishment thinks but doesn't matter for how the election will play out. >> i have a two-part question. first i don't think you know the answer but i'd be very interested based on everything you have read, what your current analysis assessment is, when and what do you think director see will come out with? secondly, i think it's wonderful

discussion a very entertaining. the second question question is, who do you think ultimately will emerge as the so-called establishment candidate? >> answer to the first question, i have absolutely no idea what they may be doing. he keeps his cards very close to the fbi director in that way. >> the polls are suggesting that it if there's coalescing going on seems to be revealed. i think were also looking at polls into states, that's what matters. the the establishment candidate, someone other than rubio or perhaps in their place candidate for the establishment candidate in new hampshire could find themselves with a little bit of momentum. i think it's hard to tell. where at where the edge of double digits are the

establishment candidate particularly in new hampshire is and that's where it matters. rubio seems to have an edge consistently more states than anybody else. i would be surprised if there was a surprise, particularly in in new hampshire. i think the jury is out on that. >> what is the say about the fact that there is a consensus among the commentary that rubio may emerge as the establishment candidate. he he ran as a tea party candidate. when he first ran for the senate, what we have considered him to be the right wing of the republican party. >> is the floaters because of the house, the term limit state he runs as a tea party guide 2010 because i was i was the avenue to the republican nomination. then ever since, he has been an establishment guy although of the last four or five weeks had starting to throw up more into his rhetoric.

he had to do that. i don't think rubio is 18 party guy at all. but to the other question, this this is one of the classic, anybody who talks and doesn't know -- it strikes me that this email thing is a hot potato that the fbi would want to get out of their hands. they will package it all up, handed to public integrity section and say, that is white they pay guys the big money. i personally think the most important primary or caucus for democrats is the one that 1400 new york avenue which is where the public integrity section has their office. lord knows what they're going to do. to me that is only key variable for the democratic nomination, is what do they do. i have lots of conversations about various people, lots of theories and it almost seems like someone's proximity to

classified material thanks the more likely to think that this thing go to a bad place or secretary clinton and people with less. it is clearly not anything like that betrays situation. it is not anything like what happened to sandy berger, this this is more getting into john deutsch territory. >> way in the back. >> thank you, my question is to think the issue policy and u.s. russia relations can -- what role can up play especially may be in the kennett become more important to the second house if

secretary clinton becomes a nominee because she was out there with russia. republicans consider -- so maybe it's in the subject. secondly, to what degree do you think current statements of candidates on the russia might reflect their policy failure to come to the white house. for for example senator rubio multiple location called russian president putin a gangster. and in the last two years if he comes to the white house -- >> on the other hand trump's praise. how do you think this is going to play out? >> i agree with what jim said earlier about foreign policy

issues play in the campaign, if it's not terrorism related directly i do not think there are many americans voting on it. if they are not voting on it i don't think think it's going to be a big issue. putin becomes an interesting foil for candidates for candidates to demonstrate their toughness or how they might interact with a foreign leader. i don't think the issue of russia or the issue of the relations of any country is going to be a significant factor. >> let me ask a hypothetical question. let's say for instance, the in russians would decide to do more with ukraine or in the baltic. in other words demonstrate this hasn't calm down but have gotten worse. when that even rise to the level of attention other than

rhetorical access by candidates or when you become an issue? >> or should it be considered an in-kind contribution to the republican party. [laughter] you want to guarantee any republican when, that's what it would take. >> but it would have to be such a significant move that american felt it was a direct threat to the united states. even what you described, i'm not sure, again terrorism at home, i'm not even sure. >> it will shape what the candidates talk about and they'll be backward looking saying if i were to be present this would've happened because i'm strong and mr. putin would have respected that. and it's like lead to any great policy, i don't think it's gonna move what the public thinks. i think it does create a problem with secretary clinton because she has identified with the reset.

if she is a candidate with a talking point as to why you cannot trust her experience because she didn't do a good job with that. >> based on the number and the tactics, could trump be clinton? >> i love polls and at least the good ones that i tend to live and die by them. they're sometimes when you look at polling and you just wonder how seriously should i take this. for example, and i'll get to your question. for example, were example, were same polling right now that shows bernie sanders running stronger than hillary clinton against the various republicans, including donald trump. it is a product of clinton's

numbers are so bad among independents and that they have heard virtually anything ugly you could ever say about hillary clinton and bernie sanders i think independents are following bernie less than democrats are. my guess is his negatives will go up but are they going to go up to -- i think i have seen paul among independents that hillary clinton's negatives were 59%, it was a big number. are they going to rise that high? i don't know how seriously to take the sweater people know less about one thing not as much about something else, and where the trump, their attitudes or donald trump may not be quite as developed now as they will be

down the road. so the short answer is, i think republicans may do something stupid but they are not going to do something insane. i just don't think they're going there. i really don't. >> at the same time i would like to see a show of hands of anybody in this room, very smart, mostly washingtonians, who believed a year ago that donald trump would be the front runner for the republican nominations. raise your hands. >> i would note to the audience watching that no hands were not. >> let me just follow up. i have talked with two union leaders, into very prominent unions, when asked about how did

their members feel about you, and both cases they center guys love it. so the question is, is, how many trump democrats are there out there for a general election, if in fact it would get that far. >> i guess i would ask is working-class white voters, how many of them are voting democratic now anyway? i think the short answer is not much. >> even union members. if it was a building construction and trained least of all, manufacturing would be in second place, public employees. >> and now just take that limited number and only look at ohio and pennsylvania where there is lot of white union manufacturing and a lot of white nonunion manufacturing going on.

i've absolutely no idea how that can play out but that is the place i'd want to see it. >> wanted to fight the trend that you're putting out about form policy not playing a role. august 14, went to americans were beheaded in iraq, public opinion polls changed a lot but staying engaged in the world. in your december debate they just asked one question after another about terrorism and i wonder what the economy will look like that circumstance. the question is does a sense get about this primary season? can they do something that will make a difference like it did in august 2014? >> so the question is whether you will get a surprise that upsets it. again it's the way we keep

talking about maybe this'll be the election it will happen and it has not. if you go back to august 2014 of the beheading, what it did was change the conversation. i'm not sure necessarily change who the candidates were going to be or an impact on the outcome of the vote. i think we focus on what the public is thinking but there is a bunch of steps between what the public thinks and what voting outcomes are. it's important to keep in mind in this whole conversation. you could have a surprise, i think quite wise in the beginning given where we are right now what trends are right now, inform policy will not be the dominant issue but it could change. >> in august 2014 is when america was introduced isis. maybe a few of us had heard of isis and realize there is a growing issue out there but america did not know what isis was at that time. it is barely in the newspapers at all something americans were talking about.

now, two years later before the election america knows what isis is, the question is at this point what can isis do to really shock america? >> i would imagine if you're a candidate in particular it would benefit and the challenge the democratic nominee would be to state take steps for the summons of the fall to inoculate yourself without happening. the democratic candidate would save my candidate is talking directly where's the economy going to be and could there be an economic october surprise as we saw 2008? another factor that the candidates cannot campaign but it is an external force that will drive voters. >> i have may not one note during this conversation. the form policy, white will gem.

>> that is where i'm going to be getting a proper quote from you. >> i just finished reading moby dick. >> it is sort of -- form policy and election is like the economy of wall street. this time is different. how many times do we hear this time is different. in the end, how often is it really different? in my comment occasionally, but not often. i think if you knew absolutely nothing about anything going on, you're better off betting that history will play out more and this will be different from anything. this election, no thought donald trump coming nobody thought he was coming or stay this high, that is all absolutely true. i think at the end of the day, will those of us who watch

politics very closely, will everything that we have ever learned about politics be proven wrong this year? everything, 100%? >> i'm going to bet against. this will be a different year. we'll have some unusual dynamics. for donald trump to win this thing would require 100% of everything we know, we knew at the beginning to be wrong. >> on that note, we are going to end this and i want to thank all of the members. i i want to thank the folks have been watching through live streaming and we look forward to carrying on this conversation and talking about president trump's form policy in 2017, or bernie live coverage here on c-span.

[applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [applause]

[applause]

[applause] governor synder: thank you, thank you very much. thank you. >> members of the joint convention, the governor of the state of michigan, rick snyder. [applause] governor synder: thank you, thank you very much. please, be seated. thank you. thank you for joining me tonight. kelly, eagern kevin cotter, senate majority leader, and the senate minority leader, house minority leader tim greville, members of the supreme court, members of the

court of appeals. secretary of state bruce johnson. attorney general bill judy. congressman fred upton. congresswoman brenda lawrence. my cabinet. ladies and gentlemen of the legislature, fellow public servants, citizens of michigan, and my family, i welcome you here tonight. i would like to begin by also moment, that is for a visit law enforcement, national guard members, and veterans. let's give them a shout out. thank you. [applause]

thank you. i do want to share one special situation with you, with respect to our military. deployed 127thd air wing out of selfridge. they had two key elements in terms of their aircraft. the a-10 war hawk which is a close air support unit that was deployed in the middle east dealing with terrorists and other issues there. it also is the k-1 35 tanker which was deployed refueling hawk andlike the war other aircraft, to make sure they can run those missions. we should be so proud. our a-10 pilots actually flew the equivalent of three years of flying and six months -- in six months. in terms of the k-1 35 pilots,

they did incredible work. they actually have a very special mission critical role. they had an inspection while they were deployed. they did something that had never been achieved in the history of the air force. not just the regard -- the air guard. they had an inspection with a show 100% of the members received 100%. they were perfect. that shows the spirit of michiganders. to recognize them, i am proud to say we have general leonard isabel, the commander of michigan air national guard, we have john slocum, the one 27th commander from selfridge. we have command sergeant major, daniel lincoln, the state command sergeant major. if you could rise and give them recognition. [applause]

they returned before christmas. i was happy to say i had the opportunity to attend the returning ceremony. -- about their compliments, i had to share it with you. they showed what they were doing and harms way to keep us safe. in addition, it is important to recognize we have over 400 michigan national guard members serving overseas as i speak today. all of michigan should be glad marine veteran of flint was released from iran, and we will be welcoming him home send -- soon in michigan. [applause]

before i begin him in terms of the speech itself, i would like to ask for a moment of silence for all of those who have fallen and protection of our communities, and defense of our country. thank you. tonight will be a different state of the state address. there is so much we could discuss about how we could make the great state even better, stronger over the next year. tonight i will address the crisis influence, first, and in-depth. to begin, i would like to address the people of flint. your families face a crisis. a crisis you did not create, and could not have prevented. i want to speak directly, honestly, and sincerely to let you know we are praying for you, we are working hard for you, and we are absolutely committed to taking the right steps to effectively solve this crisis.

do you, the people of flint, i as i have before, i am sorry, and i will fix it. no citizen of this great state should endure this kind of catastrophe. the government failed you. federal, state, and local leaders by breaking the trustee placed in us. i am sorry most of all that i let you down. you deserve better. you deserve account ability -- accountability. you deserve to know that the buck stops here with me. deserve to know the truth, and i have a responsibility to tell the truth. the truth about what we have done, and what we will do to overcome this challenge. my 2014 i will release and 2015 e-mails regarding flint to you. the citizens. you will have answers to your questions about what we have

done and what we are doing to make this right for the families of flint. anyone will be a livery this information for themselves. it is at michigan.gov/snyder. the most important thing we can do right now is to work hard, and work together for the people of flint. [applause] thank you. thank you. please be seated. i no apologies will not make up for the mistakes that were made. nothing will. i take full responsibility to fix the problem so it will never happen again. let me tell you what has been done so far, and what we will be doing in the coming days, weeks, months, and years to keep our

commitment to you. to make flint and even cleaner, safer, stronger city than it was before. that is what you and your families deserve. we are working to do whatever we must until the crisis is resolved. the people of flint have chosen a new mayor. committed toly work hand-in-hand with mayor weaver so we can rebuild the trust that has been broken. i have already taken steps to bring new leadership to the department of environmental quality. these are individuals that understand the severity of the problem, and will effectively communicate to the people of the state. for those whose mistakes contributed to this disaster, we are fully cooperating with investigations, and we will hold those individuals accountable. let me be perfectly clear to all of state government, in situations like this they must come to my desk immediately. no delays.

no excuses. period. [applause] thank you. we will provide resources to help anyone and everyone that is affected. just as we have provided since we first learned of the crisis. in addition to e-mails, tonight i am releasing the cover has a timeline of the steps we have taken, and the actions underway to solve the crisis. -- me walk you to the facts first, this crisis began in the spring of 2013 when he flint city council voted 7-1 to buy water from the cato you a -- kwa, the former mayor supported

the move, and the emergency mayor approves the plan. the department of detroit water and sewer provided notice of termination effectively one year later on april the fifth, 2014, flint began to use water from the flint river as an interim source. second, soon after the switch from detroit water to flint river water residents complained about the water -- the color, the smell, rashes, and concerns with bacteria. watertely localized boil advisories were issued by flint, each lasting several days beginning august when he 14. third, the department of environmental quality and the and -- federal and viral protection agency began reporting led concerns integrate 2014 -- february 12 14. sadly, both did not address the problem. the epa did not act with

sufficient urgency to address concerns with one of their experts about the approach and risk of lead contamination. inmate why 15, led service lines to one resident were removed and replaced due to a high levels of lead. still, they both failed to systematically identify and solve the problem. four, in july 2015, my office proactively asked about the quality of the water, test results, and blood testing. us that flint was in compliance with the lead and copper rule. they said there was one concern with one house that was corrected, and there was nothing widespread to address. the department of health and human services oso told us the elevated blood lead levels were to be expected because they follow the normal seasonal trends. these conclusions were later shown to be incorrect when the department of health and human services conducted a deeper

analysis of the relevant data. may, professor mark edwards from virginia tech, and a doctor sounded an alarm about lead in flint's water. tragically, based on what deq and the department of health and human services had seen on the ground, the initially ailed to reach the same conclusion. i want to thank the professor, the doctor, and the concerned people of flint for bringing the issue to light. we are actively in -- investigating why the agency's got it so wrong. i believe we have the doctor with us tonight. i would like to recognize her. if you could rise him a please -- rise, please. [applause]

dr. hana, i apologize. september 20 8, 2015 -- 28, 2015, i was -- i had a phone call. epidemiologist validated the findings, confirming the lead problem in flint's water supply. at this point, i immediately ordered them to develop and implement a 10 point land that includes the immediate dissolution of water filters, immediate testing of water in schools, expanded water and blood testing for anyone exposed. about 12,000 filters were the stupid. 700 water test. and 2000 blood tests were conducted in the first two months. on october 8 i announced the

flint water system would be reconnected with the detroit water system to minimize further dimension -- damage. later that month i announced the independent flints water -- flint water organization to address the crisis. issuedk force recommendations, and identify critical problems in mid-december, specifically, they pointed to a primary failure of leadership at the deq, and a culture that led to this crisis. the task force was right. i immediately took action, appointing new leadership of the department. ninth, i declared an emergency in flint on generate fifth, to access additional resources and additional support, including the michigan state police, and the michigan national guard. these critical resources were needed to help families get and any risk or

of a -- exposure for every resident of flint. presidentialted a recommendation for federal emergency which was granted. for members of the congressional delegation here tonight, this is a challenge we must work together to solve. i look forward to working with you to bring additional support from the federal government to the people of flint. , more than 37,300 cases of water, more than 53,700 water filters, and more than 7300 water testing kits have been distracted -- distributed. more than 21,300 homes have been visited. this is not enough. i and increasing the support from the michigan national guard starting tomorrow to ensure that every home we need to visit in flint is visited as soon as possible. i am appealing the president's decision not to grant a major

disaster declaration. we will continue to deliver water filters. we will not stop working for the people of flint, until everything will person has clean water every day, no matter what. [applause] thank you. thank you. that is why today i made an official request to the legislature to fund a series of immediate actions to provide everyone in flint clean water act, and care for the children. millionion to the $9 supplemental appropriation for flint made in october 2015, the request today is for $28 million with $22 million from the general fund. it includes additional bottled

water, filters, replacement filters for anyone needs these resources. assistance to the city of flint to help with utility related issues. testing and replacing fixtures in schools, day care's, and other high-risk locations. highment of children with lead levels, including diagnostic testing, nurse visits, and assessments. services will be available for the treatment of potential behavioral health issues such as adhd. for those who have had, or could have had elevated blood lead levels. we will also work with local primary care providers and hospitals to educate the committee about toxic stress, and how to identify develop no delays -- developmental delays. for children and adolescent health centers, and additional support for children's health care access. infrastructure integrity

study using outside, independent experts. an important note -- this will not be the last request for flint. additional resources will be needed for water related needs, health-related needs, educational needs, economic the elements needs and more. if you would like to help flint .com. help for flint if you are a flint resident who needs help getting the water you need, go to helpforflint.com these are the facts of what we have done and what we are doing. as solvingortant short-term needs and improving long-term solutions, we need to make sure this never happens again in any michigan city. [applause]

thank you. we began this process by creating the independent flatwater task force, and asking them to report on exactly what happened, what accountability measures must be in place, and what investments need to be implement it. -- implemented. this month i issued an executive order to make sure leaders had everything they need to clean up this mess. anyone withat lingering health care concerns is quickly, compassionately, and effectively treated. i know there will be long-term consequences, but i want you to know that we will be there with long-term solutions, for as long as it takes to make this right. there can be no excuse. when michiganders turn on the tap they expect and deserve clean, safe, water. it is that simple. it is that straightforward. that is what we will deliver.

to the families in flint, it is my responsibility, my commitment to deliver. i give you my commitment that michigan will not let you down. [applause] in addition to the issues in flint, we have a statewide infrastructure challenge. flint is not alone. michigan is not unique. we have a national problem with the infrastructure. michigan's infrastructure was ranked d by the american society for civil engineers, worse than the national ranking which was a d plus. we need to get this right in michigan for the long-term. we need to invest more and smarter in the infrastructure so

we can avoid crisises like this in the future. one illustration of success was roads. this last year we made the largest and interest rotation funding in the last half-century. it will allow us to fill potholes, rebuild roads, and make bridges safer. i want to thank the speaker and a senate majority leader for all of that leadership in making this happen. thank you. [applause] but more than roads, we have a restingroblem, we have bridges, we drive on the roads, and feel the potholes, and cracked concrete. underground, some types are over 100 years old. some are made of wood mothers led -- others are made of lead. many burst in the winter. out of sight, out of mind, until we have our problems, or the freeway flood because the constant work. lead pipes, aging natural gas

infrastructure, wastewater overflows, energy reliability, ports needing emergency dredging, line five underneath the great lakes, even the sealock, we need better solutions. we can come up with better solutions. one illustration -- we have made progress with respect for iron pipes for natural gas transmission. across michigan we have many miles with the iron pipes for natural gas. this is not a theoretical risk, it is a real risk. i was a couple met the michigan public service commission in 2011 for identifying this problem and starting to take action. they made a commitment required raising rates. we started to replace a number of those old cast-iron pipes to make it safer for people, the environment. we were smart. we began the process when costs were low so we could afford to replace the pipes. we still have many more pipes to

go. this is the kind of problem solving we need in the future. here are some actions we can immediately take on the infrastructure. first i want to issue an executive order -- i will issue an executive order to the michigan department of transportation, that they will confer with local officials and utilities every time we do a new road project. it is the best opportunity quite often to replace the aging infrastructure underneath those roads, when the road is torn up. we can save money, and do the smarter. i ask the legislature to consider looking at the same issue when local government does road projects. how can we partner if the roads are torn up, let's do more while we have the opportunity. when led investigations are made in the state, we do not currently do this, but we should be checking water sources and critical areas. in addition to checking for paint, dust, and other environment factors. we should be ensuring that all schools test for lead in michigan, putting up priority on

those in areas where we know they have aging infrastructure, or let problems in the past. we should be increasing led education efforts in schools as well. overall we need a smart, strategic plan for all of us. it requires an honest assessment of the challenges, opportunities, and costs. that is why i will be recreating the commission for building the 21st century infrastructure. we need experts steeped in credibility, visit -- visionary leaders committed to michigan's future. they will study what michigan needs, develop a plan, for making the right investments and water, sewer, transportation, broadband, and other areas. also discussing how we will pay for the investments. i will have for the report in september of this year. in addition to infrastructure in flint, i now want to talk about detroit and education.

great challenges cannot be addressed without hard work, long hours, and true partnership with the communities in need of new hope and a fresh start. selling is not impossible, and certainly not without precedent. let's look at detroit, when you're after leaving bankruptcy. rebuild,t continues to it should give every city in this great state, a hope and belief that we can deliver new opportunities for everyone. who would've dreamed possible that the idea that just a year after bankruptcy our state's largest city has become a hub or innovation and excitement. there is dynamic economic roads downtown and the town. it is keeping and drawing young people to the state. it is important to note there is much more work that needs to be done, especially in the neighborhoods. but progress is evident everywhere. there are over 59,000 lights that have been turned on.

more than 7600 structures demolished since 2014. violent crime is down 18% since 2012. we're showing what detroit can do. as part of that i would ask recognition for the mayor. please stand up. [applause] thank you for your partnership and helping rebuild a great city. our recent work at detroit gives us a measure of pride, the schools are in a crisis. the detroit schools are in need of a transformational change. are failing ats their central task of preparing our young michiganders for successful rewarding life. put, no